- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
The poll indicates support for the more aggressive position Newsom has taken in standing up to Donald Trump, particularly over a plan by Republicans in Texas to redraw their state’s congressional seat map in the hopes of winning more seats in midterm elections next year.
The battle to become the 2028 presidential election candidate will likely set the new direction for the Democratic Party as it struggles with net favorability at what one recent poll showed to be a three-year low. Newsom has not formally announced his candidacy.
Newsom sounds like a typical Democrat then
He’s not a Dem, he’s a neoliberal.
It’s way past the time to stop pretending there isn’t a distinction. We can’t just let them keep lying about what they are, because they’re trashing the image of the entire Democratic party.
They don’t have the same goals, strategy, or process.
Neoliberals are fundementally different than Democrats. And now that neoliberals no longer control the democratic party, it’s time to differentiate the two camps.
Um what?
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom are some of the major leaders of the democratic party. They’re still running the party as they have been for the past few decades. Maybe accept that and stop supporting the party.
Who is in a leadership position in the DNC that isn’t a neolib?
Please define Neoliberal for the class.
Then review the list you have.
Because the neo liberals controlled the DNC for decades, and if reps didn’t vote for who the DNC wanted in those positions, the DNC would fuck with them and withhold the money that was stolen from their state via Victory Fund out of spite.
They’d fuck over any incumbent that went against them, even if that meant a republican kept the seat.
But the voting members of the DNC finally kicked the neoliberals out of power at the DNC.
The people you are talking about are still coasting off the last leadership elections in the House/Senate when the neoliberals were in charge. They won’t win the next ones without the threats from the DNC.
Does it make sense now?
This is important to understand and billionaire owned media sure as shit aren’t going to explain it, so if you have more questions I’ll try to answer them.
The chair, who unilaterally controls everything for the next 3 years…
If you think he’s going to fight against progressives, look at the decade he ran Minnesota, it went from a purple state to deep blue and home to some of our most progressive House reps.
If Martin is a neo liberal who wants to keep progressives out of office, he’s so bad at it he might as well not be trying.
Logically that means the reason he was picked is the voting members of the DNC want to listen to voters again instead of screeching at them.
Quick edit:
But it seems you’re conflating House/Senate leadership with DNC leadership…
They should be separate things, but decades of neoliberalism has intertwined the two.
It’s going to take another House/Senate leadership election cycle to fix that, because the last vote happened with the old DNC.
The DNC/Democratic Party is funded by billionaires and corporations. They do the bidding of billionaires and corporations. They want to please billionaires and corporations. They engage in systematic lawfare to restrict parties and individuals to the left of them from having ballot access, way harder and with more cohesion than they ever have fought Trump or conservatives. The influential think tank Third Way wants Democrats to move away from progressive policies and small donors.
The DNC even elevated Trump and other far-right individuals in 2015 as part of Hillary’s presidential campaign. This is the same party that colluded against Bernie, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as a result of the scandal and courts finding that it’s legal to rig primaries.
The DNC and the Democratic leadership are both center-right. Why can’t we have a left party instead of making the Democratic party something it isn’t?
Ken Martin is hostile to progressives and individuals who want to change the party like David Hogg, by the way. Here is some leaked audio that sheds light on the situation.
And an excerpt from Wikipedia:
They just crushed a person pushing progressive primary challengers on grounds of gender diversity and tangentially on Hogg’s impacted neutrality in future primaries, from my understanding. Under Ken Martin’s leadership. This is the same party that favored Hillary in 2016, but now suddenly when there are progressives challenging the status quo, Ken Martin proposed this rule:
This is like blaming Biden for things trump did 2016-2020…
And when someone tries to explain that it was literally two different people who just share the same title…
You start yelling that “a president is a president and it doesn’t matter”.
I’m sure you think you made some great points, but it’s literally as ridiculous as not understanding “president” is just a title.
The only thing relevant to current DNC, is that they redid an internal election because the old DNC didn’t follow DNC election rules…
Which you’re apparently very upset with, you would prefer to keep the results of a fraudulent election?
Just saw your edit. Voiding the results of an election on grounds of “gender diversity” after several months was the current leadership’s decision. They voted on it in June, unless I am misunderstanding something. The election wasn’t “fraudulent”, it violated their rules and was called into question a month after Hogg started making waves. David Hogg was one of the key people attempting to reform the Democratic Party/DNC and he would’ve been well positioned to do that as Vice Chair.
I want progress. Hogg was crushed because he wanted progress, you can’t rewrite history. It’s undeniable that it all unfolded the way it did because leadership wasn’t pleased with him.
It was the fault of their idiotic diversity rules. And although I like Hogg’s preferred candidates, it is also true that DNC members should not be pushing primary candidates.
There will continue to be strong pushes towards preferred candidates. The Super PACs will do most of the heavy lifting.
The DNC can brand themselves as neutral, but they aren’t.
The DNC is not a totally different organization. Citation needed. Billionaires and corporations really didn’t want Bernie back then, and they won’t want progressives getting in office in the future.
Until the DNC only accepts money from small donors, and there is campaign finance reform (looking at Citizens United being overturned), it’s naive to believe progressives will ever have a shot.
Their cash flow depends on pleasing their masters, they won’t jeopardize that.
So what you are saying is that Citizen’s United is the reason progressives “don’t have a shot”. Do you know understand the chain of events that led us here? In 2000 (A) progressives voted for Ralph Nader, who (B) threw the election to George Bush, who (C.) appointed several archconservative Supreme Court justices, who (D) established Citizen’s United.
So you rexample of Citizens United as being the thing that fucked us over is AN EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVES SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT.
The whole system is broken. If spoiling has been an issue for decades, perhaps we needed election reform a long time ago.
No, instead we only pass blame to people who want progress. Enough.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the DNC is and how it works…
If you weren’t also insisting that you know how it works at the same time, I probably would have stuck around to explain it.
You’re also ignorant of what their fundraising has been like and where it’s coming from since the new chair.
Billionaire large money donations are virtually non-existent, and small donors has skyrocketed.
But again, if you were genuinely asking questions, I’d stick around to answer. Instead you’re just insisting untrue things are reality and demanding I argue with you about it.
Very few people are going to invest the time required for you to understand this, when this is the way you go about it.
If the DNC’s fundraising situation has changed, it’s not due to any policy forbidding billionaires and large donors. The DNC has lost the confidence of their major donors, according to Politico two days ago. They have raised very, very little in comparison to the GOP.
Talking down to me is not evidence that the DNC has changed significantly. When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.
Even if the DNC is branding itself as friendly to progressives, those progressives will be absolutely crushed when a primary or election occurs. We need campaign finance reform to move forward as a society and to have a semblance of representation and democracy.
Again, I could give less than a fuck about the DNC’s complexity as an organization. It is not nurturing progressives. Evidence is needed to support that assertion. The DNC will be back to taking primarily large donations before long, and so will the candidates that win the primaries (if there is any challenge posed by progressives at all).
I guess time will tell. Though I’d still rather go for real socialism than progressivism
Martin ran Minnesota up till the day he became DNC chair…
He’s not some random unknown person, there is zero indication to show he’s going to run the DNC differently than he did Minnesota.
If he does start fucking around, believe me I’ll be the first to call him out on it. But right now there is zero logical reason to expect any difference.
That’s the great part about Martin.
It’s not that he has a view of what voters want, and is going to try and make that work.
He runs fair, unbiased primaries, and whoever wins he’ll put the full weight of the party behind them in a general.
It’s why billionaires are trying to convince people they shouldn’t vote in the next dem presidential primary, and why it’s essential we counter that
From what I’ve seen, he’s further to the right than even many of the utterly useless center-right Democrats.
Out of curiosity, why did you reply to a comment about the importance of differentiating neoliberals from Dems, by conflating the two?
Because they haven’t left the Democratic Party yet, and though the party may be starting to move away from neoliberalism, most of its most prominent voices today are still neoliberals. Running Newsom as a presidential candidate would seal the deal.
I believe we’re at least a decade out from progressives being the main front runners for the party. The baby boomers are still in power because they vote the most, followed by Gen X who is even more conservative than the Baby Boomers based on the 2024 voter data.
When Millennials finally start getting into power and make up more of the voter share I could see progressives being the majority.
Alternatively, if we change the voting system in more states, like Alaska and Maine did, then we could have more candidates winning elections that are closer politically to Mamdani, AOC, and Bernie. It would enable third party candidates to have a much greater chance of winning elections as well.
No bgen xers are not. Absolutely no.
Millenials and zoomers are just as conservative.
In fact zoomers and millenials, the largest voting block now, went trump
Please enough with the age thing
For Christ sakes yes some older people, including me are more conservative, gen exers are cranky and want to be left alone. We are Not more conservative
It is a MONEY thing. Not a generation thing
Youbwongvsee progressives running the country until that is removed. EOS.
Fight the class war. That’s what the real issue is. Not our ages. . Edited. I am more conservative in things like fiscal repsonsibilty, not human rights, Nazi tolerance or any of that shit.
What’s funny is I find racist war mongers on both sides, screaming how had the other side is.
Pew Research data shows that Xers voted much more conservatively than the other demographics. Even more so than Baby Boomers.
The data shows how they voted; Zoomers and Millennials were both majorities for Harris.
I bring this up because there is data to back this. Gen Xers were more conservative, and since they vote at a larger scale than Millennials and Zoomers we’re much more likely to be pulled into more conservative politics for another decade or two at the least.
I believe it is a cultural thing and a money thing. Exposure to things like unleaded gasoline, microplastics, and misinformation/propaganda at a grand scale likely hasn’t helped.
Culturally more people have been raised to be progressive than they have been in the past.
Money doesn’t leave politics unless we vote in enough ethical leaders to change the laws. That can be more likely under a different voting system throughout the country.
The class struggle requires new generations being pulled into the cause, but if older generations vote more conservatively and have a higher percentage share of the votes then we won’t be able to vote in anything to address or tackle the class struggle for possibly another decade. The more we fail to pass positive change, the more burned out some people get from the process as well.
Organizing, unionizing, and trying to change the voting system to use an alternative voting system are our best bets at the moment I feel.
The war mongers are the neo-liberals on both sides, since they usually have some huge benefits from their districts and from arms sales.
Right on, just making sure there wasn’t a good reason. Thanks for confirming